Good news! USA Covid death growth rate slowing...

[SAN compnerd]

I'm not making it up.

'Presumed' and 'probable" are determinable to very high degree of certainty-- through process of elimination.

You still can't get a CoVid19 test without first fulfilling a stringent set of criteria for testing:
Exhibition of symptoms, viral testing, recent social history.

Many people are still being denied CoVid19 testing because they do not meet the criteria threshold.

Through process of elimination--- symptoms, non covid viral testing, social history, lung imaging, and blood o2/co2 levels, etc--- "presumed" and "probable" are very straightforward determinations for CoVid19 cause of death with very high degrees of certainty.

And yet there have been 2.1 million tests performed to date, and of those 75% are negative.

Do you think if 75% of people meeting the strict criteria for testing are negative, then if we randomly test people with no symptoms, which is already starting in some places, we will find more or less than 75% negative results?

One would logically think that if we are following the biased testing requirements and only testing those that have symptoms, yet 75% of those are negative, then widespread testing of non symptomatic groups will have a higher percentage of negatives.

Unless of course you just want to fear monger and push scary false narratives.

[saxman]

And yet there have been 2.1 million tests performed to date, and of those 75% are negative.

Per the CDC, the percent of positive tests is actually quite a bit lower than 25%. Try more like 10-15%

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview.html

[AR15fan]

And yet there have been 2.1 million tests performed to date, and of those 75% are negative.

Do you think if 75% of people meeting the strict criteria for testing are negative, then if we randomly test people with no symptoms, which is already starting in some places, we will find more or less than 75% negative results?

One would logically think that if we are following the biased testing requirements and only testing those that have symptoms, yet 75% of those are negative, then widespread testing of non symptomatic groups will have a higher percentage of negatives.

Unless of course you just want to fear monger and push scary false narratives.

STOP WITH THE LOGIC!!! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT HERE!!

[viet4lifeOC]

And yet there have been 2.1 million tests performed to date, and of those 75% are negative.

I was going to note that, but seems utterly useless to someone who magically equates "presumed to HIGH DEGREE of certainty" from the CDC guidelines of "Suspected or likely"--> "Reasonable degree of certainty"---> it is acceptable to write "presumed" or "probable" on the death certificate as cause of death.

LoLz

[viet4lifeOC]

Per the CDC, the percent of positive tests is actually quite a bit lower than 25%. Try more like 10-15%

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...covidview.html

Good find.

With Boris...you want to give him as much room as possible so he can dig himself deeper.

LoLz

[saxman]

Good find.

With Boris...you want to give him as much room for him to dig himself deeper.

LoLz

SAN jumped the gun

[five.five-six]

Per the CDC, the percent of positive tests is actually quite a bit lower than 25%. Try more like 10-15%

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...covidview.html

Since in this thread 9,600 is more than 10,000, I can say with high degree of certainty that 10% to 15% = 25%


_ 10%
+ 15%
= 25%


See? I was right!!!!

[boris badinov]

And yet there have been 2.1 million tests performed to date, and of those 75% are negative.

And how many of those 2.1 million tests had the symptom of death?

Yeah. That's what I thought.

[saxman]

And how many of those 2.1 million tests had the symptom of death?

Less than 12,857


Well that's not fair, there's a high likelihood that there have been many tests on people that died that came back negative and we don't currently know if the number of tested negatives exceeds the number of presumed positives.

I was tempted to leave out the likelihood part of that statement, but then I'd be making stuff up without the information to substantiate it.

[boris badinov]

Per the CDC, the percent of positive tests is actually quite a bit lower than 25%. Try more like 10-15%

Conspicuously absent is the fact 30% rate of False negative results for Covid19

[saxman]

Conspicuously absent is the fact 30% rate of False negative results for Covid19

Sure, let's give that statement the benefit of the doubt (the 30% number comes from a non-peer reviewed study that said it could be up to 30%) and assume that 30% of the negatives are false positives and add it on to the high end of the tested positives of 16%...

That still only means that 46% of those tested due to the "stringent testing standards" applied prior to testing are actually positive.

Would you consider 46% success to be a high degree of certainty?

[therealnickb]

Conspicuously absent from almost every "factual" post attempt. "We really don't know yet..."

[boris badinov]

46% falls in the range of reasonable degree of certainty.

Are to tell us how many of those false positives were for for fatalities?



Just to be clear, the point youre trying to make is that the ~14,300 reported deaths are being either erroneously or deliberately mis-reported as covid related?

[the_tunaman]

Just to be clear, the point youre trying to make is that the ~14,300 reported deaths are being either erroneously or deliberately mis-reported as covid related?

Birx already admitted that.

[saxman]

46% falls in the range of reasonable degree of certainty.

Are to tell us how many of those false positives were for for fatalities?



Just to be clear, the point youre trying to make is that the ~14,300 reported deaths are being either erroneously or deliberately mis-reported as covid related?

Well, the actual point I'm trying to make is that you're just making **** up. First it was that 100% of reported covid deaths were test confirmed, then when that got proven wrong it was that a high standard was applied on the presumed cases like when tests are given. Now that that's been shown to be wrong, the backpeddling continues.


With that said, yes, I think that there are many deaths being mis-reported as covid. I've made no statements as to the motivation to do that. I would like to believe that it's because they're being fast and loose with the information and the presumption is that it's better to over count than under count. Assigning malicious intent would be easy and I could hypothesize plenty of reasons why one would do so, but I have nothing to substantiate that and often incompetence is misdiagnosed as malice.


The key takeaway, however, should really be that the data we currently have, be it high or low, is unreliable. Recognizing that is important and highlighting situations that point that out are important.

Unreliable data is of little value in deciding how to act.

Context for information is key.